Illustrated Daily; 5012; They Also Ran: Minor Party Candidates in Major Races

You My name is Linda Pedro. I'm running for the State Senate District 5 in Rio Reba County in Pobaki, Cuyamongue. I'm a right in Canada and a rainbow coalition Democrat.

My name is Shirley Jones. I am the Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Congress in Mexico District 3. I am Orland Cole. I'm a Republican. I declared right in Canada for the U.S. Senate from New Mexico. The Illustrated Daily, Managing Editor How Roads. Good evening. It is perhaps understandable as the 1984 General Election draws near that New Mexico voters should be preoccupied with the choices offered by our major political parties this year. Reagan versus Mondale, Domenici versus Pratt, Asbury, Lujan, Schien, York, Richardson, Gallegos.

After all, our political life is greatly influenced by the realities of our historic two-party system. But on November 6th, when New Mexico voters finally confront this year's ballot, they will also find more than Republicans and Democrats amongst whom to choose. From the race for president to the state board of education, minor party candidates and writing candidates are also in contention this time out. We will be talking to two minor party candidates momentarily, Dr. Donald Lee, Citizens' Party candidate for the state Senate from District 13 in Albuquerque, and Stephen Curtis, Libertarian Party candidate for the United States House of Representatives from New Mexico's first congressional district. First, however, a little background. Those who seek public office as minor party or write in candidates rarely win. It has happened, however. New Mexico's second district, Republican Congressman Joe Schien, won election to the United States House of Representatives in 1980 as a write-in candidate,

albeit with the very substantial support of the Republican Party. More frequently, however, minor party and write-in candidates have added issues and color to the American political process. In the latter years of the 19th century, a minor party calling itself the progressives, so captured the imagination of American voters, has to become a threat to the major Republican and Democratic parties. The major party's response, they simply absorb the progressives issues and made them their own. And there have been some colorful minor party candidates over the years. In his last run for public office Teddy Roosevelt ran as the presidential nominee of a minor party, the progressive bull moosers, he lost. In 1948, former Vice President Henry Wallace sought the presidency under the auspices of the progressives. He lost. In 1968, Alabama Governor George Wallace ran for president, as the American Independent Party candidate, he too lost. But in losing minor

party candidates often affect the outcome of an election. Historians contend that Teddy Roosevelt very likely defeated his old friend and fellow Republican William Howard Taft in 1912 by splitting the vote and giving the presidency to Woodrow Wilson. So, what's happening here in New Mexico this time out? Two minor parties are especially visible on the ballot, the Citizens Party and the Libertarian Party. They, along with a number of right-in candidates, also run this election year. I'm running as a right-in candidate and as a Democrat because I feel the people of District 5, for once and for all need a real chance to have a senator down in the legislature and not just a machine party boss running District 5. And I'm not, I don't consider myself an alternative, I consider myself the candidate for the office. For the first time in Northern New Mexico, a very congressional district, which stretches

down to Sacaro, we will have a Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Congress. This is a win for us. We also believe that every vote for the Libertarian Party is a message to Washington D.C., a message that will begin to influence policies of the people who are there. Now, I've been campaigning actually every time there's a seat open in Congress, especially U.S. Senate seat since 72. So, my main plan is just to wear them down and eventually I'll be in the Senate. There's no doubt in my mind that I'll be a U.S. Senate. I think there's a lot of potential in Rio River County. The Hispanic culture in this area was once very self-reliant in a green culture and was destroyed by the onslaught of statehood and Anglo-Takeover and the First World War and the Depression and so on and so forth. But I think there's a lot of potential for clean industry, economic, self-reliant, economic growth in a positive way, not an exploitive way to this area and to the resources here. I do not believe that we should

continue to expand and put more money into the military budget more than enough. A verified nuclear freeze is almost a joke because how would we verify it? We can't, it would be a fine thing if we could do it and verify it, but we can't verify anything with Russia. I can remember President Truman saying they were the biggest liars in the world, so how are we going to verify anything with them? I really feel today that it isn't a question of should women be in politics. I think they must considering the issues that face women today over half the population is female. A lot of the single-parent red winners are female when you're discussing rape crisis, abortion, battered women's shelters, programs for children, nutrition, and public education. You're talking issues that really affect women every day. And I don't see how any decisions can be made on a state, local level, or on a national level

without women being an important part of the decision-making. I think it's a question of we must do then. Libertarians believe that you have the right to control your own life, your own legally acquired property, your own destiny, if you will. We believe that the proper functions of government are to protect our constitutional rights and to provide for a strong, national defense for the people of the United States within the United States. And we see that this is changing today, rather than becoming smaller, government is getting larger. Voices from Minor Party and right in candidates in New Mexico this election year, there is a formidable undertaking given the tenacity of our historic two-party system. And Dr. Donald Lee, Citizens' Party candidate for the State Senate from Albuquerque, you know the odds. I'm not reporting any breaking news to you. Given those odds, what makes a Donald Lee run? Well, we hope to build the party for the

future. If we don't win now, we can perhaps build as the Democrat and Republican parties did. They originally started as third parties. And so we hope to build a party that will represent the interests of the majority of the people. Another reason for winning is to get, I mean, for running is to get the issues before the public. There are a number of issues that the Democrat and Republican parties either refuse to raise or agree upon, and we don't agree with them on all issues. So we want those issues raised. Perhaps we can get those parties to raise those issues in the future if they don't know. Of course, that has been a historic characteristic of third parties in the United States, impressing their views as it were upon the major political parties. Help us if you can, and I know these things tend to be somewhat superficial, but on the traditional political spectrum in which most people calculate political posture in this country. Where on that spectrum would you have us place, the Citizens' Party?

The Citizens' Party is officially allied with the Green Party in Germany, which was concerned with environmental issues, stopping the possibility of nuclear war. Many of the members of our parties have been, you might say, left-wing Democrats who are disenchanted with the drift of the Democratic Party to the right. Many others are a little bit closer to what you might call social democracy in Europe. Do you take an umbrage to the characterization of the Citizens' Party as a leftist party? No, I don't. It doesn't bother you. When you say you're officially aligned with the Green Back Party? The Green Party. Well, now the Green Back Party, however, is one of the great third parties in the American experience. The Green Party. What does that official alliance? What does that mean? Well, they have recognized, in fact, they call us,

the Green Party of America. They have made some kind of official coalition with us. All right. So it's an international party? Are you saying it's an international party? If sorts? Not really, no. All right. But we have common interests. We have common issues. We have had speakers that have come here from the Green Party to represent our issues publicly. Stephen Curtis, you run for the United States House of Representatives for New Mexico's first congressional district. I feel compelled to ask you the same question. Obviously, that I just asked Dr. Lee, you know the odds. Under those circumstances, what makes a Stephen Curtis run? I'm very concerned with the direction that our country is going. I see more government and more government. And the major parties have not been able to address the real issues. The real issue is should all of these problems be dealt with by government, or should they be dealt with by people, by individuals? And is that more effective?

I think the answer is people can do it. So you see too much emphasis in the public sector, as far as problem solving is concerned. You would have more emphasis in the private sector, as far as problem solving is concerned. Is that right? Is that a structural characterization? All right. Same question again. I just asked Dr. Lee, we all know I do. I get very nervous when we talk about the traditional political spectrum, but people do tend to think in those terms. Where on that spectrum would you have people put the Libertarian Party? Libertarian Party really can't be classified in terms of liberal or conservative. It takes portions of what's traditionally conservative, what's traditionally liberal, and it puts that together in one concept of individual liberty. That means that people should be free to do what they believe is best for them as long as they're not hurting somebody else. The federal government should be there to protect us from other nations

and national defense and to protect our civil liberties. And the other aspects of our lives are best handled by individual freedom. So I guess the liberal point of view would say that individuals should have more freedom on questions such as abortion. We would agree with that. The conservative point of view traditionally would say you should have more economic freedom and government should not be interfering in our economic way of life. So it's kind of a blend of both really. All right, I want to get back to that perhaps in a moment, but in reading the Libertarian Party campaign materials, your platform, one detects at least in certain areas tax reductions, less government involvement in economic affairs, which you just mentioned in effect, reduced government spending. There are echoes of views here which are quite similar in many

respects to views embraced by certain factions of the Republican Party. Now I suppose the cynical political strategist and I will play that role for a moment would say given those shared values doctrine, would you not have greater political clout through some kind of an alignment with a major party like the Republican Party? I think you're saying my question. Yeah, it's possible that you could get into that political party and assert your own views. There are some Republicans in this state in the state legislature that I think are more or less Libertarian and they've simply chosen to run as Republicans. So you could use that vehicle. My problem is I'm not comfortable doing that. I believe that by doing a third party, a Libertarian party, you really focus on a whole

different concept. The concept is to get away from government. The government really is creating the problems. Government, as we know it, is unable to balance the budget. Why? Because of the structure of Congress, the way it's set up. And the only way to solve that is to stop Congress from doing as much. If they have fewer things to do, they can hurt us less. Well, let me try it this way. To the extent third parties in the United States historically have tried to influence the major parties. They have really one of two routes. That is, to take them on from outside as you are, or to work from within, make themselves a part of the internal establishment of a major party, pursue those objectives and doctrines within that party that are consistent with those embraced by other major factions in that party and cause those points in that party's doctrine or platform

with which they disagree to be changed as a consequence. Is that a legitimate approach to your objective? As far as the substance of your views is concerned? I'm afraid that the substance of our views conflicts so much with the Republican Party that I'm not sure that you could really be comfortable working with it. The Republican party this year, at least, doesn't believe that a woman for instance should have the right to decide whether she has an abortion. They are really forcing moral issues on people. On the other hand, they are taking a very bellicose attitude toward the Soviet Union and refusing to really sit down and negotiate about arms reduction. I don't see how you really shift all that that way to that part of you to work outside and make them hear you. That's what I want to do. All right, Dr. Lee, I'd like to try the same question obviously out on you and looking at your party's platform, notably in the areas of civil rights, social programs, environmental protection

and the like. There are echoes of your views obviously in certain factions of the National Democratic Party. To the extent this is the case, same question. Why doesn't the citizens party maximize its clout work from within the existing major party and perhaps therefore better advance your doctrine? I think the views we believe in are often expressed within the Democratic Party and then finally ignored. For instance, the Democrats don't raise the issue of nuclear winter. This is a problem that we could get into an accidental nuclear war. They don't raise that issue. If we were to get into an accidental nuclear war and use even less than 1% of our nuclear weapons, this would lead to perhaps the end of the human race, at least the extermination of civilization on the North American in the North in the Northern Hemisphere. They don't raise the issue of

unemployment for instance or at least, excuse me, they claim both parties are perfectly willing to accept a certain level of unemployment. The citizens party believes that there should be no unemployment whatsoever. I would be willing to start a statewide WPA if that were possible in order to end unemployment altogether. I think you may have just answered one of the questions I'm about to go for because I still would like to try to get our bearings here. In looking at your platforms, one of the things that struck me is that ironically, although at certain points you do indeed differ, you have at the same time certain principles and doctrine which are strikingly similar support for the Equal Rights Amendment. You both embrace that and end to the United States intervention in Central America. Reductions in our military spending. Now for a lot of people, those are major issues and they might even consider those

to be the basis for an alignment between your two parties. Is that an attractive idea? I believe there are many attractive programs in the Libertarian Party, but there are a few basic differences between us. For instance, they claim that the major problems in the United States are crime and big government, but they tend to downplay the big corporations. The citizens party believes that the big corporations are a major problem. We would like to find some way to control them because they generally control government. I think the Libertarian Party says, yes, big corporations are a problem, but they were created or monopolies, they say, were created by big government. I think that's just historically and correct. The monopolies perhaps are the cause of big government ultimately, but the monopolies came first. The large

corporations have to be controlled by big government. That's, big government is a problem. I agree, well, but big government is not created by monopoly. It's the other way around. I would ask you the same question, obviously. I think that the focus of the citizens party and Libertarian Party is diametrically opposed. We have some of the same goals. We also would believe that the power of corporations is probably gone too far. The reason, however, well, I haven't done a study. I can't give any specifics, but we have an uninvited guest on the set here. I don't know it's a registered voter gentleman, but you probably ought to pay some attention to it. Go ahead. I'm concerned about the power of corporations because they do affect people, but what I see is government handouts to big corporations that are about to fail. The government is interfering in those situations. The government is permitting and creating an atmosphere

in which the corporations can exert more influence than if we simply left them alone. Let me ask you both, starting with you, if you don't mind, Mr. Curtis. It's a difficult question, but I would think it's a question with which a thoughtful voter ought to be concerned. Let's assume you beat the odds. Let's assume you win, either or both of you. You end up as a member of the United States House of Representatives. You end up as a member of the New Mexico Legislature, barring almost an inconceivable set of upsets around the nation, and here in New Mexico, the chances are you would be the sole representative of your party in Congress. You would be the sole representative of your party in the New Mexico Legislature. Both of those legislative chambers, the Congress and the state legislature, our places where party strength is a powerful influence, and often dictates, in fact, the legislative agenda. Why should voters diminish their own personal

individual political cloud under those circumstances by voting for a minority party candidate? Because if I am in Washington, in Congress, what my function would be is to talk with the other Congressmen. On any issue that comes up, get them to be aware that there are other ways of doing it. Let's look at what's really more effective. In most cases, it's more effective simply to let people do whatever they're going to do at the local level, at the states, in the local education districts, let's say. Let's get Congress out where Congress doesn't need to be, and my role would be simply raising those issues and forcing them to deal with those issues. The life, as I understand it, and have indeed paid some attention to the history of minor party candidates, when rarely they do

get elected someplace like the United States Congress, or independence when they get into the United States, lonely life, unless you have a closely divided Congress where they have the swing vote, and that is so rare is to be almost never happened. I think it happened once the United States Senate since 1950. They're basically ignored. I'm willing to take that risk. My question was should the voter take that risk? I think the voter should. As Dr. Lee said earlier, it's a message. If someone gets elected from the Libertarian Party in Congress, the other congressmen are going to be looking over their shoulder thinking, well, maybe next year, next election, it's my turn, and Libertarian is going to be running against me, and so they've got to pay attention to those issues. I have, of course, posting a question of you. I think it's a fair question. I think we can raise issues that aren't being raised now. I think the voter should consider whether or not he's wasting his vote voting for the lesser of

two evils, and he still gets an evil, voting for a program that he doesn't like. He gets a lesser of two evils, or she gets a lesser of two evils, and isn't that often where the reality of politics is? Well, I would prefer to change things. I would prefer to have people vote for something they truly believe in. I think the country is going in a negative direction because people are voting out of fear, voting out of worries they have that maybe there will be a greater evil if they vote for somebody else. Why don't we set up a possibility for them to vote for somebody, something they really believe in? Let me test out if you don't mind a familiar interpretation of American politics. We've touched upon it. Some American political historians have argued that the ultimate measure of success of a third party is its ability to work itself out of existence by so impressing its views upon the major parties that they have no alternative but to embrace them as their own. Basically, the progressives did that at the turn of the century.

They made progressives out of the Republicans in the form of Teddy Roosevelt and out of the Democrats in the form of Woodrow Wilson. It was about the last we heard of the progressives except as a minor philosophical influence in the American experience. To what extent would you consider the citizens' party a success were it to achieve that objective? I would be perfectly glad if the Democratic Party accepted our program. I would rejoin the Democratic Party, which I left because I see them drifting to the right. The Democratic Party isn't a party if the left. On the world scale, it's a party of the right. Both Republicans and Democrats represent the right by, say, European standards. So we want to raise issues that aren't being addressed now. Same question. My answer is the same. I'd be happy if some other party adopted the ideas of the Libertarian Party. I don't have any personal desire to simply go to Congress

just to have power. I'm learning simply to try to get the issues across. I'd be thrilled if you would consider the Libertarian Party a success if it caused that to happen in other words. If we could get other parties to stop taxing us, to allow us to have our personal freedoms and to stop spending billions of dollars on the military that we don't need, I'd be thrilled. Gentlemen, you're a pleasure to talk to. Thank you so much for coming to Illustrated Data this evening. I'm afraid our time is up. We're going to leave it at that. That is it for tonight. Tomorrow at this time slot, executive news brief and our guest, Governor Tony Anaya, in his first full-length television session with news reporters since the dramatic revelation that an anonymous legislator has requested the Legislative Council service to prepare impeachment proceedings against the state's chief executive. Next week at the Illustrated Daily, a full agenda, everything from a look at nuclear power plants in this region to a debate between the Republican and Democratic State Chairman over the two parties, national platforms.

Meanwhile, thanks for joining us. I'm Hal Rhodes. Good night.